[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Sip] Ready for WGLC on SIPS draft? Any last thoughts ontransport=tls?

Francois, Robert,

see below

Regards,
Jeroen

We've got this concept of a location service that you access
using REGISTER.
The spec talks about running it separately from a proxy - so
consider the case where  a proxy either does query REGISTERs
or sends a request to a redirect server to figure out where
it's supposed to go. What it gets back is URIs in Contact
header fields. How can the location service tell the proxy
that's asking for a routing decision that "for this input
URI, goto this output URI and use TLS"?


Yes, that is certainly a more concrete use case. Both for
the location service you mention, or for redirect servers in
general (when used for routing).

This may be the main technical reason for re-instating transport=tls.
I'd be willing to go along with that.

To me, the way it should work is that TLS would be used if the returned URI was a "sips:" URI, or if the returned URI was a "sip:" URI and the proxy decides to upgrade it to "sips:" (i.e. due to local policy). I don't see the need for transport=tls in this case

Regards,
Jeroen



_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip